Reviewing your tract:

Ignores the fact that all of these writings, and others such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, were compiled, edited, vetted and, in many cases, rewritten and altered to create the KJV that most people use today.

Where did he do this? Oh yeah, in the Bible. So we are supposed to trust that the Bible is true because the Bible says it is. Do you see your problem here? What is needed is independent confirmation that Moses predicted things that later came true. No such evidence exists.

This is not supported and needs to be. The fact that you would make such an incredible claim and not offer even one specific example is extremely damaging to your credibility.

There is direct, independently confirmed evidence to the effect that the New Testament was carefully edited and altered to agree with the OT prophesies. Even so, in many cases, the compilers screwed up and left in severe contradictions and omissions.

I hereby prophesy that I will finish writing this post at some point. If I'm right, does that mean you will take everything I say as the perfect Word of God?

There is no need for me to read further at this point, since I have already pointed out that those prophecies, and the tales of their fulfillment, are not worth the paper they are printed on. When a writer foreshadows that something will happen later in the story, then writes the story such that the predicted thing actually happens, no one ascribes miraculous powers of prophecy to that writer and for good reason. This is what occurred with the Bible and that is why the Bible agrees with itself in many areas (and not others).

I have to say that tract was a little disappointing as an attempt to present a convincing case for the truth of the Bible. Have you written the one that deals with the modern-day fulfillments of Biblical prophecy yet? Because that would probably be a lot better.

Except the internet doesn't have the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

Specifically, the inclusion of the Ten Commandments on government property can be viewed as violating the intent of the prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion.

Joy is Shelley !

"no law respecting an establishment of religion" ....

 Tax the fuck out of the churches, Sue for back taxes! Fish people are the enemy!  Zappa

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/zappa.htm

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/quote-z.htm

      BTW, That's a great site to dig into , see home here,

http://www.positiveatheism.org/index.shtml

And what religion is the government trying to establish by displaying the Ten Commandments. The Jewish faith follows these and so does Christian faiths(Catholic,, Lutheran etc). So which one is the government establishing here. NONE. It is a statue representing a lot of different religions never establishing one as dominant.

By letting all Churches and temples be tax free, the government is not establishing one as dominant.

I would have no problem with any other religious statues or non-religious statues...because I am not a whiner baby. We all have to get along we all live on the same planet in the same country with the same color blood and the same aspirations and hopes and dreams. Whiner Babies....people who always have to get their way. I pay school tax, yet I do not have children in school, why do I, not because it is the law because it is for the betterment of society. I would rather that my scool tax dollars go to a Catholic school but you can't win them all. I went to Catholic grammer school, when I got to public high school and took my science and math guess what I already learned that in catholic school. I had already read Romeo and Juliet and hamlet and lord of the flies and alot of other books already also. Catholic schools are just better for education.

Super-sensitivity, political correctness....whiner babies. Hate crime...whiner babies. If i want to call someone an ethnic slur that is my first amendment right to do so. That is not to say I will not get the crap kicked out of me, but then I deserve it. Putting someone in jail longer or at all because of what is said...whiner babies and against the first amendment. Why don't you put some energy on that issue since you are all so concerned about the first amendment in here. Certainly free speech is more important than a number of religious statues and Merry Christmas signs.

George Washington's farewell address:

 Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion, and Morality are indispensable supports.—In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens.—The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them.—A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity.—Let it simply be asked where is security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion.—Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure.—reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.—

You all really think that you are so much smarter and better than the billions before you. You are arrogant, selfish, and self centered. 

Dogma is poison, plain and simple, period .... the enemy to heal ....

    Teaching 'God of Abraham' doctrine as truth, is flat out child abuse.

Says who...you and your cronies.

Let me reitterate....religion was created by man who is fallible,so was science

The Bible was written by divine intervention through God making the Bible infallible.

Since Man is fallible both science and religion will always be controlled by the people in power.

The difference is the Pope isn't taking money under the table to hold back progress in order to keep power in a controlled state. The second vatican council proved that by changing the Mass and making it more Humanist, which failed because we have people like you today and the loss of Church attendance. Which is why the current Pope is trying to put things back to the way they were.

Humanism is by definition arrogance. Look at all your titles above your pictures..you are all arrogant, self centered and are trying to make yourselves sound elite and the need to feel important. I feel important already because God created me, that is important enough for me. I do not need a title or a mantra to make me into something "special". I belong to God and I am special. that is all I need to get me through the day how bout you. And you already have the titles so the answer is plain to see.

YOU ARE NO WHERE NEAR GODLY

God created man on the 6th day not the first.

George Washington:

Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion, and Morality are indispensable supports.—In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens.—The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them.—A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity.—Let it simply be asked where is security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion.—Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure.—reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.—

Nope. Not at all. I think those who came before simply lived in times where they had less opportunity to be open about saying "does God exist? I don't know, and I won't claim I do until that changes". If you don't know that God exists, you can't actively believe in him. Belief is the assertion of knowledge. If you don't believe in God, you're an atheist.

Mutilating a child's body is abuse. Teaching them that the natural urges of their body due to powerful hormones as they mature are inherently evil is abuse. Teaching them that if they fail to live up to the standards of an unattainable perfection, they're going to burn for all eternity... abuse.

Teach them to live their lives as best they can. Teach them that we live and work and play in cooperation because cooperation benefits us all far more than simple selfishness. There's no need to wrap it up in divine finger-pointing and thunderous 'obey me or hurt forever' nonsense.

'Science' is a methodology, not a belief structure, which is why the scientific method calls for all findings to be tested, rigorously, and calls for us to be willing to discard any that we find to not fit observations, no matter how long we may have held them. Men are fallible, and so science calls upon us to presume our results are flawed, and seek to disprove them.

And you have actual evidence of this, right? You've independently verified the statement, I mean, you're not just repeating what some fallible man told you, right?

That has more to do with most people being passive sheeple, not 'fallible'... and science, in this age of easy access to mass communication tools, growls less and less controlled all the time.

So you're saying Ratzinger's taking money over the table to reverse progress? Vatican II's changes to the Mass amounted to nothing more than the same changes Martin Luther et al ushered in centuries earlier. And yet, it's the Protestant evangelical denominations that are most rabidly fervent in their (internal) orthodoxy. Seems to me like those 'humanist' changes didn't stop them from attending Church.

Maybe Catholicism (and I say this as a former Catholic) would do better by putting the interests of the community the Church is supposed to serve ahead of the interests of the Church hierarchy. I did dearly love JPII, but the pedophilia issue was one where he dropped the ball in a massive fashion, and that damaged the credibility of the Church in the US.

I am not special. I am me. I am extremely similar to many other individuals out there, though exactly like none. Of course none of them are exactly like one another, either, so our differences are yet another similarity. I have no need to feel special. I have no titles. I live, and that's all I need. One day, I will die, and I will end, and that very finite nature to my life is part of what gives it meaning to me: This is all the time I have, so I do my best to appreciate it. What about you? Why do you need more than this life?

Let's assume, for a moment, that you're right, God exists, and the RCC is dead on the money.

God has created a world for you. He has given you your life, and the people who surround you. He has given you gifts that no other being could give you. And yet, you want more. You tell your benefactor, "This is lovely and all, but I don't want to end. I want to exist forever, in a nicer place, where nothing bad ever happens."

I accept and embrace the finite nature of my existence.

You reject all you claim your God has provided you with, and demand more.

Which of us is 'arrogant'?

Nor do I seek to be. I seek to be me. What about you?

I would say that faith can be thought of as suspension of disbelief. Much as we suspend our disbelief to watch a film, faith can be viewed as the willingness to set aside doubts and say 'Ok, I'll roll with it', only outside of any agreed-upon time limit or circumstance.

But that's just a thought.

Let's keep in mind that A)Paul was not present at Pentecost, and B)The Twelve endorsed no ministry to the gentiles until Paul was already gaining in strength and influence over twelve years after his supposed 'conversion'.

As for why Paul said anything? Because it served to extend Paul's influence. Paul is the worst religious con-man in the last 2000 years, and at the same time, the most successful. He perverted a celebration of the life of the Apostles' friend and teacher into a ritualized performance of human sacrifice, and directly contradicts what we are told are the words of the living Christ.

Them being scared definately isn't the reason for christians not commenting, they definately just dont visit a rediculously biased site like this one, but i like to hear the other side and i must say that i 100% believe in seperation of church and state. It's stupid for people to try and force their bible laws on the unfaithfull.  If you want me to question my religion you have to make a better question than that.

PeteBot, "You guys will earn the validity to disregard fundamental truths about Christianity when you do the homework."  ////

As a general rule the atheists have done their homework and have graduated to the the status of being "saved". God of Abe idol worshipers are failing and blind. People assemble or follow many different story Jesus philosophical versions.

I can only accept the atheistic/pantheist Jesus as a jewish buddha philosophy. I am an atheist jesus fan , as the christ is in me, as we are one with the cosmos (father/mother). The Bible is an interesting and revealing ancient "Twilight Zone"script.

Religion dogmas and "god" really don't belong in the same book. The best study of god is science. My jesus had no religion and no separate master. This simple jesus message has been perverted by so so many, as would be expected.

I sure wish all "god of abe" worshipers would read the eastern writings on jesus.

Can buddha jesus save the christians yet? Talented delusioned bible paul and his, the anti-christ clan, have sadly rendered saving the xains a huge task.

it is a crossed t or a dotted i ,  your a genius!!!!

Well said. Nuff said.

Matt Churchman is almost atheist ! Going backwards thru your post, the supreme court is barely pro freedom, so the struggle is not nearly over.

And yes talented Paul, the greatest of NT deceivers. Look, another jesus writer wrote that "I have not come to bring peace, but to divide" ... Why ? Might it be there is only one truth, that all is the the kingdom of god / heaven NOW ? That we are one with the cosmos ( father /mother/ it ) ? FUCK all DOGMA, of all SEPARATISM.

             My way or the Highway ... fuck yeah atheist jesus buddha ....

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/pagels.html
The entire site is informitive of many historians view points , get your"Jesus/Buddha" on !
             ((( "I am God/Jesus as you" )))

"Orthodox Jews and Christians insist that a chasm separates humanity from Its creator: God is wholly other. But some of the gnostics who wrote these gospels contradict this: self-knowledge is knowledge of God; the self and the divine are identical." ~

               ALL IS ONE , is it not ? poor poor xains, idol worshipers  ....

But Matt C,   wasn't story jesus a jewish buddha like character, with a non superstitious atheistic / pantheistic philosophy? How could one say "I am one with the cosmos (father), or "this is the kingdom and heaven NOW" etc, and not be of a buddha mind set, of no other master, so don't pray publicly, go home and meditate (think) alone, and yes the "laws" of physics (g-o-d) will never change. All is "ONE".

500 BC - Buddha consciousness - 'I am in the father and the father in me'. The message is that we are all the "christ" ....

There are two major conflicting jesus versions in the NT. The buddha like one, and the pauline like one. It's really is up to a persons interpretation and close examimation. Much has been written on this subject. The books not included in the NT are also revealing.

http://tomstine.com/jesus-and-buddha-parallel-sayings/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible

"Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being." -Thomas Jefferson

The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills. -Thomas Jefferson

       Etc etc, just keep on thinking honestly on it good Matt C. I am an "atheist for jesus", the buddha like story jesus. Whether a historical person, Jesus or Buddha existed, is  irrelevant. What we are, on this atomic speck of dust we call earth, is all a science question. Amazing, Gawedly, Miraculous, it is ! .... So NO to all dogma superstition idol worship separatism. Why create a master, an idol??? .... Sure, I understand ..... and I am sorry, but obviously we are on our own. Welcome to the still primitive, "21st century schizoid man", on this planet of fear and confusion.

And therein lies his success. Paul was imprisoned? Repeatedly, right? At least, according to Paul... but never charged with any crime, and always finds a way out. Saul of Tarsus, the tax collector who was from the 'civilized' areas north of Judea, who had many contacts and connexions among the Romans...

Paul's imprisonments read very much like 'I'm gonna go crash with my wealthy friends for a bit, how do I spin this?' Prospering in his lifetime? The man gained influence and power over others. You think there was no money in it? Then why did he send Timothy and at least three others to collect offerings from congregations when he wasn't present?

Generally, honest men can remember the most significant and important event of their lives, instead of changing their story each and every time they tell it.

I care because the Constitution of the United States says that the government shall not endorse any religion over any other. The Ten Commandments on government property represents an endorsement of Abrahamic faiths over non-Abrahamic faiths.

I care because the Constitution of the United States, the laws of the United States, and the judicial system of the United States are about us. They're about men and women being responsible for themselves and responsible to one another. They are about We the People declaring our dedication to establishing, propogating, and striving to ever improve our own society. Ours is a society where we exercise our best judgement and call upon those around us to exercise theirs, in cooperation and understanding, because we acknowledge that while it may not be perfect, so far what we have is the best thing we've been able to come up with, and if it isn't, we can try to change it so it is. They're about the unspoken trust we should have in one another that when there is injustice and evil, we must be the ones to face it, and we must be the agents of justice and righteousness who will solve the problem; and that so long as we stand together in our determination to solve these problems, good people can disagree on the best way to attempt it. Everything this country is built upon is a testament to that principle: that good people can disagree about solutions without sacrificing their virtue, and without sabotaging one another's attempts to find the answer. They are about us, human beings, as the ones who shoulder these responsibilities.

The Ten Commandments are about people being responsible to God. They're about people ceding their judgement and self-determination over to an unseen parent-figure who explains nothing, and just says 'trust me. do what I say.' They're about a set of ordinances set down that are forever unchangable, unappealable, unquestionable. There is no avenue to say 'hey, God? I think you made this one a little over-broad...' They're about everything, in the end, being on God. God will punish the wicked. God will reward the just. God will see to the needs of His people, so long as they uphold those 10 laws. And if something bad happens? Obviously, the fault was yours.

Modern Christian thinking tends to shy away from that last bit. It likes to hold that God is testing us when bad things happen, and that by holding to our faith, we'll come out the other side the stronger. But even that encourages this reliance on God to do for us what we should be doing for ourselves.

The laws of this country are about humans making the decisions about how humans need to behave. About humans having to perform the unpleasant task, sometimes, of looking another human being in the eye and saying 'You have to pay for what you did. You are accountable to us, your fellows.' And they are about giving the accused the opportunity to question this judgement, and to face both his accuser and his judge. The Commandments are about God making all the decisions, and humanity obeying without question, without the chance to face either the judge, or the one truly bringing suit against us, because it is the same being: God.

The behaviors described in the Commandments are, for the most part, laudible goals. But the why and the how of it matter. The principles behind the laws are in many cases more important than the laws themselves. And in that measure, the Commandments are anathema to the Constitution of the United States.

Matt C, it does effect people, and like putting a cross in the court entrance. I don't see how any critical mature thinker could be ho hum about it. Even as I as an atheist Jesus fan of a sort, xainity and judaism are blatantly wrong as they separate us from our true nature. Geezzzz all is g-o-d, or nature, and to say other wise is childish damaging make believe.

Having a favorite mentor(s) can often be good, important and helpful, but having an idol as is taught in most religion is obviously wrong. In the east it is more about who is your favorite "mentor". In the west it's so much like, my mentor or fuck you.The U.S. is a religious mess.

Read, "Religious Moderation", by rrs Hamby. See the other essays at "RRS Authors" in left list, a bit down from top. Link,

http://www.rationalresponders.com/religious_moderation

              Keep thinking, caring, and observing.

This seems a helpful current thread for especially theists,

Is materialism self-evident?

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15239

Because democracy cannot simply mean that the will of the majority must always apply in every situation there exists a constitution which forces all democratically nominated views through a procedure whereby their intent and effect are measured against the ground rules established for the functioning of that state. Decisions which offend the principles of the constitution cannot be inflicted on the state, no matter how many people want them. Only a change in the ground rules first can allow it.

Those ground rules were not founded on christian principles, despite what you seem to think. In fact the ground rules were devised by people with the intelligence and foresight to set in place a legal framework at the highest level which expressly STOPS what you say should be regarded as a norm. Check out the religious views of your founding fathers again, bud. You might get a shock.

It amazes me how ignorant many so-called intelligent Americans are when it comes to the constitution that protects them (often from themselves) and the enlightened views of those who constructed it. Even more amazing is their take on democracy, holding notions of "majority rule" that equate to "mob rule" and thinking they are echoing the wishes of "christian" founding fathers. It would be laughable if it wasn't evidence of a dangerous level of ignorance that shows a country regressing over 200 years instead of progressing. Fucking scary stuff.

The structures in the USA which are appointed to serve the people must, by definition, serve all the people. They are expressly forbidden to favour any one group, no matter how big it is. They most definitely should not advertise their subscription to a set of ideological principles established by an Iron Age desert race with a persecution complex and genocidal policies directed against their neighbours. The writers of the US constitution were intelligent enough to see this. You apparently aren't.

"Check out the religious views of your founding fathers again, bud. You might get a shock."

Just to clarify they are not my founding fathers. I'm not even American. From studying some of the earliest literature of Euro-Americans I have however got a bit of an understanding of the views of Americas earliest Anglo settlers...they were definately fundy's I do admit that when it comes to founding fathers and the original political establishment of  the US I am a bit ignorant as it is not an area I am particularly interested in.

"It amazes me how ignorant many so-called intelligent Americans are when it comes to the constitution that protects them (often from themselves) and the enlightened views of those who constructed it. Even more amazing is their take on democracy, holding notions of "majority rule" that equate to "mob rule" and thinking they are echoing the wishes of "christian" founding fathers. It would be laughable if it wasn't evidence of a dangerous level of ignorance that shows a country regressing over 200 years instead of progressing. Fucking scary stuff."

Obviously this wasn't directed toward me because I'm not American nor do I as a Christian believe that Christian laws should be imposed on the people as punishable by the State. The whole idea is ridiculous in my opinion. All I was saying is that 'majority rules' does tend to be the outcome of democratic societies. I thought this was quite easy to recognize. Look at your leadership...who gets in...the one who gets the majority of votes? So if a large portion of the country holds a certain view on how things should be run...a representative who upholds those beliefs will likley get in. Majority rules. I wasn't trying to justify it...I'm just saying that's how it usually goes. Really all I was saying. It seems inevitable.

"The structures in the USA which are appointed to serve the people must, by definition, serve all the people."

Wouldn't this would place huge limits on the law as it is likely that there are going to be contradictory and conflicting ideas on how to serve the people. For instance...well there are tonnes of examples of this. Point is that what you are saying is impossible. Good idea though.

"They are expressly forbidden to favour any one group, no matter how big it is."

So within the Muslim community in America..should they be able to practice what they percieve to be justice within their own group? Just a question? To not allow this would be showing favour to others groups right?

"an Iron Age desert race with a persecution complex and genocidal policies directed against their neighbours."

Maybe you should be careful when judging other cultures and time periods based on current ideas of government and morality. Again just a thought.

"The writers of the US constitution were intelligent enough to see this. You apparently aren't."

Ah this is the trademark Athiest insult right? It is possible to conduct a conversation in which others post opinions different from your own without having to insult their intelligence no? My post was mostly just thoughts in response to the post. I am personally not for the inclusion of Christian values in politics. I thought I was clear on that. All I was saying is that it is inevitable and in this case I don't see it as something to get all out of sorts about. Again, I'm coming from the same place as you...it is not my ideal and in fact I beleive it to be against the actual teachings of Christ...however a stone in the lobby of the Supreme Court is the least of my worries. If you could give me an example of how this stone has effected you personally that might help me to understand why it is even an issue.

Peace and Love

I'm just on my way out and I read this last post by Nordman. I'll get back on here and clear things up when I get a chance.  My dear condescending compadre...re-read my post and then read yours. Perhaps read the post with a less defensive attitude and you will realize that most of your criticisms are based on a serious misunderstanding of what I actually wrote. It would be helpful if you used quotes from my post that way I could address each issue and maybe bring some clarity. See you soon.

PS- I went to respond to your post and it said that the post does not exist???? If you all can't see it or don't know wha tI'm refering to it is the one about how " I confirmed your suspicions about my intellectual capacities" or some shit like that

You are a good guy Matt C, and Nordmann is a caring, sick of the bull shit, good guy too. Hell beans, that atheistic character, caring jesus was a 'my way or the highway' good guy too. Umm, he called peter satan and went temple smashing !!!    Amazing we and our ancestors are, as all life and existence is. WOW indeed !

And seriously, many churches do good things, but the way most all them teach god and jesus is damn silly, sad, and worse. It must be fixed, and yeah I can yell like hell about it, as I often do. It sucks man. It is not healthy.

The buddha meditation method is partly about simply clearing ones mind, going to a place of zero ideas and presumtions, to return with a fresh clear unbiased sense of truth and reality. Basically the ideas of all others that have come before us in our head don't change what the ultimate truth about life is. It's some what like jesus doing his long meditation of 40 days ridding himself of wrong thinking (confronting the devil or demons within, like fear, greed and guilt)

   Keep caring, smell the roses, and be true to yourself.

There you go again. No they weren't. Check it out.

When you get your facts straight and I can be sure that I am conversing with someone who at least recognises historical truth (whatever about other forms) then we can discuss the other more irrelevant things that suddenly seem to interest you, like my age or my intellect or whether you merit respect based on what you have communicated so far.

Most importantly we can then discuss your main point - that the emblematic placement of a monument to Juadeo-Christian scripture should regale all users of a courthouse in which secular law based on a secular constitution is imparted, and should not be deemed offensive. I contend that it is doubly so - it is offensive to those who do not subscribe to the narrow terms of morality enshrined in the document in question, but above all it is offensive to the principle of citizenship in a secular state where pains have been taken from its inception to ensure that no one religion's narrow morality be allowed compromise the fundamental principle of freedom and justice extended to all who live in that society. The founders of US government and law understood this, and well understood that christianity would represent the majority faith of the country's citizenship when they composed the constitution that would exclude its tenets from being those on which egalitarian justice would be structured. In fact, that was why they did so. 

What you call "just a stone" is something more than that therefore, and I suspect underneath it all you know this as well as I do.

"... the original established government as well as the majority of the earliest American citizens were fundy's." - me

"There you go again. No they weren't. Check it out."

I think there may be some misunderstanding yet again. Maybe I'm off but did or did not the Puritans set up governing bodies in the Americas upon their arrival? Was this prior to the goverment that was established by your 'founding fathers'?

Listen, I'll be straight here. I understand why the ten commandments being displayed in the courthouse is offensive to you. They symbolize something to you and because of this you feel that them being displayed on government property is unconstitutional. My point was that if you should choose to fight against anything it should be the problem and not a symbol. In itself the stone is nothing more than a stone. If your government passes legislation that actually does something (outlaws abortion or gay marraige)...anything that you feel is the product of "Christian" influence - that should maybe be the focus of your political struggle. See what I mean? For example...if the stone is removed and your government goes on to create laws that are based exclusively on "Christian" morality ect...then what is the point? If the stone stays and the government is uninfluenced by Christianity in it's decision making- again what is the point? That's my point.